IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.556 of 2025 Reserved on: 20.03.2026 Date of decision: 30.03.2026 Keshari Devi H ...Petitioner.

Versus Kishori Lal ...Respondent.

Coram: o The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reportin t g?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Uday Singh Banyal, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral):

The present petition arises out of the order as passed by learned Civil Judge-cum-JMFC, Barsar, Hamirpur, dated 06.11.2024, whereby the applications filed by the defendant under the provisions of Order 8 Rule IA(3) of CPC, have been ordered to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2009, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant, her agent, servants and family members from raising any sort of construction in any manner or changing the nature of land over the and comprised in Khata No. 8 Min, Khatauni No. 16 Min, Khasra Nos. 387, 389, 395, kita-3 land measuring 0-02-62 Hectares, situated in Tika Morsu Daryalan, Mauza

1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

Pahalu, Tehsil Barsar, Distt, Hamirpur (HP.) as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 2003-04. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land. The defendant, who is a stranger, with utter disregard has got no legal right over the suit land. Instead, the defendant is bent upon to occupy the suit land by raising illegal construction thereon. Although, the plaintiff requested the defendant to carry out demarcation of her own land, the defendant refused to do so and openly threatened the plaintiff that she would occupy the suit land forcibly. Therefoure, a decree for permanent prohibitory in junction restraining the defendant, her agents, servants and family members from raising any sort of construction over the suit land was prayed. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for possession in the event the dhefendant successfully raised any structure on the suit land during the pendency of suit. Lastly, decree for demarcation was also prayed in the plaint.

3. The present petitioner/defendant, Keshari Devi, contested the suit by filing written statement on 10.04.2009, raising various preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability etc. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiff is not in possession of Khasra No.387 and that the defendant has been in exclusive possession of the suit land. The defendant has constructed a latrine and a bathroom over Khasra No.387 since March 1990, and the defendant is enjoying the same peacefully without interruption and objection and has become owner by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that the possession of the defendant is open, continuous, hostile, uninterrupted and without objection since March 1990.

4. Initially, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed on 26.10.2016. The defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (Circuit Court at Barsar) bearing Civil Appeal No.13 of 2016. The learned appellate Court, vide judgment dated 16.12.2017, set aside the judgment and decree as passed by the trial uCourt on 26.10.2016 and framed an additional issue i.e. issue No.7A, which reads as under:-

“Whether the defendant has become owner of Khasra No.387 by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPD”

5. Furthermore, it was held that both the parties shall be entitled to lead evidence on the aforesaid additional framed issue, with a further direction to appoint a Local Commissioner to demarcate the suit land and ascertain the nature and extent of the encroachment. The judgment as passed by the learned first appellate Court remanding the matter to learned trial Court was assailed before this Court by filing FAO No.498 of 2018. The same was decided by this Court on 19.04.2024,whereby the order as passed by learned first appellate Court wa